From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29AA115F3ED for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721837735; cv=none; b=E/RLmkGCOQr+wSnQlxgxbr4WxqEjcepA3mx2x2Kd0BPH1e2vMiJT6Tb4iH1HNGEPKrKQJUm7qxfM0H6WULkbk++IPfLBEhkQxgxH47irGWnlBoJb0qxtzEhABd0+sZFiAuB0hkHUiMAiZ5RbV3eEn1vH3iP8uqvLwij479iPLxA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721837735; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Hww4KsAWz1uTK4+W00U/l6tlFFqxcDEvfiwXo6022Ec=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=R77XQZE0LR+5W58ZGHS0p975toz3exffotmqg2SSCpZ2FUHKrqApLdnqMD04uwQ7TuKoZUVstTnU2agK73MXyJC6XhYkTXQxRdorHVOtLO7C+HdIexyTiHmQEm9Z/rLrOw5p2YEhNXQpXb0b9raxJnsxH6N0h0Hv4vvCefIw9Xc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=qFy0gusZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="qFy0gusZ" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AB62928A; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:15:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Hww4KsAWz1uTK4+W00U/l6tlFFqxcDEvfiwXo6 022Ec=; b=qFy0gusZa5VUDgrngWXbhuoZqQzygNUVzMKHJzf+oJ2QBXBkfs21e7 yLQAr5u3/AQbITGzpnJkRgvuCUS+iL5+pNVs1VlWqYnk9O+xAuFwQydbVPVZS2SA NjOg0FxP8QGg6xzQlM/2JHnL/jjC50uFaB7LPpcUx+inRPmQuQd80= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2CD29289; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:15:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3225829288; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 12:15:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Chandra Pratap , git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] t-reftable-pq: add test for index based comparison In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Wed, 24 Jul 2024 11:03:07 +0200") References: <20240614095136.12052-1-chandrapratap3519@gmail.com> <20240723143032.4261-1-chandrapratap3519@gmail.com> <20240723143032.4261-7-chandrapratap3519@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 09:15:31 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F367F0F6-49D7-11EF-938F-BAC1940A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Patrick Steinhardt writes: > One of those reasons that we use the modulo-loops in the other tests is > so that the order in which entries are added is mixed. Here we add them > in priority order already, so that makes the test less interesting. We > might thus want to do the same here and scramble the order a bit. Wouldn't modulo-loops mean the total number of elements must be prime with the skip count, or something, which in turn means that it is harder to test certain corner cases of the underlying data structure (e.g. "what if the length is exactly a power of two? A power of two plus one? A power of two minus one?" etc.) It certainly is much better than just inserting in the priority order (or in the reverse priority order). Thanks.